GOD’S UNIVERSE

THE EARTH IS FIXED AND DOES NOT ROTATE

A TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE

COMMON OBJECTIONS

AND

ANSWERS TO THOSE OBJECTIONS

1

PREMISE:

It has been about 4 centuries since Fr. Nicolaus Copernicus suggested a paradigm-shift from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism [now A-centrism] as an explanation of “how the heavens go”. Those who suggest that Sacred Scripture tells us only how to go to heaven & not how the heavens go must be dismissed by the fact that Scripture makes a number of references to “how the heavens go” & a number of those support Geocentrism. It is also a matter of Church history that because of those references, the Fathers & Councils of the Church – prior to the aftermath of the Church’s Galileo affair – were geocentrists. Church decrees against earth movement have never been abrogated or reversed by any ecclesiastical pronouncement, although opinions have not been in short supply.

As a matter of clarification Geocentrism (earth centered universe) is where the planets revolve around the sun as they do in the heliocentric system (see Tychonic Model above). It takes the same time for both. The only difference is that in the Geocentric system, the sun and its planets revolve around the earth once per day in a medium called aether which has already been proven by numerous scientific experiments (Sagnac in 1913, Michelson-Morley in 1925, Dalton Miller in 1933, Herbert Ives in 1943, et al) Since the earth does not revolve or rotate it is not referred to as a planet.

In the 20th century the cosmology paradigm shifted from Heliocentrism [sun-centered universe which was Galileo’s belief] to A-centrism [a universe without center], but in

2

both systems for the cosmos, the earth is alleged to be moving – contrary to what Scripture tells us. Heliocentrism contended that the Sun did not move & was at the center of the universe, whereas A-centrism now admits that Sun is moving [all over the place], and also alleges there is no center of the universe.

1) Objection: In the geocentric universe the outer stars would have to be revolving around the earth at exorbitant speeds to make a complete revolution in 24 hours. How is this possible?

Answer: The Geocentric universe has a medium called aether that permeates all objects and is what is spinning around the earth which is immobile. According to Ernst Mach and Lense-Thirring, supported by Einstein himself, the gravitational effects of a rotating star system around a stationary earth are exactly the same as the gravitational effects of a rotating earth in a stationary star system.

The stars don’t have to travel huge speeds themselves as would be required in the helio-centric universe, rather, they are carried in an aether medium that satisfies almost all the speed demands. It is the aether that moves and carries the planets and stars.

This means that the sun, relative to the aether, is not moving at 24 million miles per hour, but is hardly moving at all. The independent movement the sun makes relative to the aether, however, will allow it to transcribe a path through the zodiac each year. Hence, as the aether rotates once per day around the earth, the sun rotates with it, and the sun will come back to almost the same position each day, except that it will be 1/365th ahead of where it was the day before. As for the rest of the stars, they also rotate with the aether, and thus they are not moving at exorbitant speeds, rather, the aether is rotating. Since the aether is at Planck dimensions, it can withstand such speeds.

3

However, the heliocentric system demands that the sun move around the galaxy at a half million miles per hour, and that the Milky Way galaxy move about 100 times faster than the sun around clusters of other galaxies, and that the outer most galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. Now that’s getting into the science fiction realm! Thus the heliocentric system DEMANDS these impossible speeds for the stars.

2) Objection: Newton’s Gravity Law implies that less massive objects orbit more massive objects therefore the earth must orbit the sun since the sun’s mass is larger than the earth and its gravitational pull is stronger . NGL = force of attraction between two physical bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between their centers of mass, therefore smaller bodies revolve around larger bodies.

Answer: Newton’s law that smaller bodies revolve around larger bodies is true ONLY in isolated systems in which there is one large body and one small body. But the fact is our system in not an isolated system and includes innumerable galaxies. We can also create a geocentric model of the universe. Using Newtonian mechanics, we can construct a mathematical model of the universe such that the earth is at the very center, the sun is in the middle, and the stars are on the rim. If all these bodies are positioned in the exact places they need to be, with the exact masses they need to have, it would result in a system in which the force of the stars carry the sun around a central earth, much like the rim of a spinning bicycle wheel carries the spokes around the axle. This would not be hard to design at all. A good computer could figure out what the proportions of distance and mass would have to be to satisfy both a Geocentric universe and Newtonian mechanics.

As an aside, scientists know that gravity works, but they don’t know how. All they really know about gravity is that its force is proportional to the inverse square of the distance, but they don’t know what “causes” gravity. Newton himself admitted this. The only thing Newton did is measure the force of gravity and put it into a mathematical formula, not explain the nature of gravity.

Gravity is a result of the disturbance an object makes in the aether ( a medium that permeates the entire universe). The more massive the object, the greater the tension it will cause in the aether, which will result in greater gravitational force. Since the aether is at Planck dimensions, that means that its reaction time is about 5.391 x 10^- 44, and thus gravity can exist simultaneously over very vast distances. Science has already observed this in the immediate reciprocity of gravitational effects between the sun and the earth.

3) Objection: The people who launched the GPS satellites believe that the earth rotates, and so they placed their satellites into an orbit at which they circle the earth once every day, believing that this would result in a geosynchronous orbit. But if those satellites are currently not moving at all, if they somehow went from 6,850 mph to 0 mph (without anybody noticing), what stopped them?

Answer: The only way one could prove that a GPS satellite is moving at 6,800 is to first prove there exists a stationary inertial framework against which to calibrate a speed of

4

6,800 mph. Since in a heliocentric system there is no absolute inertial framework due to the fact that heliocentric theory posits that all the heavenly bodies are in relative motion, then there is no absolute inertial framework to measure a speed of 6,800 mph.

From the geocentric perspective, what is REALLY happening with regards to the GPS is that the GPS satellites are moving against the inertial framework of the stars and their forces, not the earth. In other words, the GPS is revolving every 24 hours with respect to the stars, but not the earth, since the earth is stationary.

In the Geocentric framework, it is the stars which are moving in circular orbit around the earth, and it is the gravity of the stars (or any forces caused by revolving stars) which provide the inertial framework for any moving object on or near the earth. Hence, in the Geocentric framework, when the technician sends up his GPS, he is encountering real forces – forces against which he must operate the GPS. He must calculate how much thrust he needs; the inertial values; and all the other things that will be required to keep the GPS moving against the tidal forces of the stars (although, because he believes the earth is rotating, he thinks he is merely making calculations against the centrifugal and Coriolis effects between the object and the earth). Since the inertial force from the stars at 22,000 miles would be in equilibrium with the gravity of the earth, the GPS satellite can virtually hover above the earth at 22,000 miles with little thrust and little adjustment. The GPS would only require enough power and adjustment so that it can remain in position against unpredictable solar forces.

4) Objection: All the other planets rotate around their axes and have their own day and night. Why is earth suddenly exempt from these characteristics?

Answer: The rotation of the planets has little to do with proving whether the earth rotates. In fact, the rotation of the planets is quite strange. Mercury hardly rotates at all, only making three rotations per year. Venus rotates in the opposite direction of the other planets. Uranus and Pluto rotate north/south instead of east/west. The ones that do rotate show a marked centrifugal consequence, such that north/south circumferences are thousands of miles shorter than their east/west circumferences (e.g., Jupiter). Conversely, photographs of the earth from space show no such east/west bulges, but a perfectly spherical shape, which gives evidence that there is no rotation. Satellites are also puzzling. Our moon doesn’t rotate. Some of the moons of other planets rotate, some don’t. In addition, of Jupiter’s 16 moons, four go in the opposite direction to the other 12. One of Saturn’s moons goes in the opposite direction, and two of Saturn’s moons switch orbits every four years. There are many more such anomalies. There is hardly a pattern in the solar system from which to assert that the earth cannot deviate. The planets are about as different from one another as trees in a forest.

5) Objection: Where in Scriptures does it say that the sun or stars move around the earth?

Answer: Note that in scriptures God says the sun moves not the earth.

5

Wisdom 13:2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.Job 9:7 Who commandeth the sun and it riseth not: and shutteth up the stars as it were under a seal:Judges 5:20 War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara. Psalm 18:6-7 He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way: 7 His going out is from the end of heaven, And his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.Ecclesiasticus 43:1-2 The firmament on high is his beauty, the beauty of heaven with its glorious shew. The sun when he appeareth shewing forth at his rising, an admirable instrument, the work of the most High.Josue 10: 12-13 12 Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun , toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.Ecclesiasticus 46:5 Was not the sun stopped in his anger , and one day made as two?Ecclesiastes 1: 5 The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place : and there rising again,

6) Objection: God had to be speaking in relative terms since we all know that the earth revolves around the sun.

Answer: If there were any passages in Scripture that say the earth moves, you would have a point, but there are none. The following passages refer to the earth from an astronomical perspective say that it is not moving:

Psalm 93:1-2 The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord is clothed with strength, and hath girded himself. For he hath established the world which shall not be moved. Thy throne is prepared from of old: thou art from everlasting.1 Paralipomenon 16:30 Let all the earth be moved at his presence: for he hath founded the world immoveable. Psalm 104:5 Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever. Psalm 119:90 Thy truth unto all generations: thou hast founded the earth, and it continueth.

In these references the word “establish” is the Hebrew kun. It is in the Niphal form, which means it was made such by an outside agent (God). But know that kun has a wide variety of meanings. The meaning the heliocentrists often attach to the above verses is that “establish” merely means to “begin” or “found.” We often use this meaning in English in saying, “That building was established in 1924,” meaning that it was founded

6

in 1924. But kun means something more. Kun can refer to something fixed and immovable. Kun’s variation in meaning depends on the context it is placed.

For example in 1 Paralipomenon 22:10 it reads: “He shall build a house to my name, and he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him: and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.” Obviously, “establish” cannot mean merely “to begin.” It refers to the continual upholding of the state in which it began.

Also, in Judges 16:26, 29: “And he said to the lad that guided his steps: Suffer me to touch the pillars which support the whole house, and let me lean upon them, and rest a little. …. And laying hold on both the pillars on which the house rested, and holding the one with his right hand, and the other with his left” The word “rested” is the Hebrew kun, depicting a house that is motionless and stationary upon the pillars it was built.

1 Esdras 3:3 gives the same meaning: “And they set the altar of God upon its bases, while the people of the lands round about put them in fear…….” Another issue is the use of the Hebrew mot in Psalm 92:1; 1 Paralip 16:30; Psalm 118:90. When applied to physical objects, this word refers exclusively to movement (cf. Jb 41:23; Ps 124:1; 140:10; Is 40:20; 41:7). But in the usages of mot, the only time the earth is said to move is in the apocalyptic language of Is 24:19, which coincides with the apocalyptic language of Mt 24:29-30; 2 Peter 3:10-13, but that is at the end of the world.

7) Objection: Haven't the space probes we've sent out gathered any information that would confirm either the heliocentric or the geocentric model?

Answer: No, space probes cannot prove the heliocentric model. One of the reasons is that if everything is moving in the solar system (as the heliocentrist claims) then there is no standard from which to measure the rate of movement. Imagine yourself in a room with 20 people moving around trying to determine the center point of their movement. It would be impossible, since the center would keep moving in relation to how the people are moving. The only way you could make real determinations is if one person in the room did not move. That person would be the center, and each person could then measure how far he was from that center person. Without that stationary person, the center would be arbitrary.

8) Objection: The Heliocentric model explains the seasons of the year: Sincethe earth is “tilted” on its axis, one hemisphere is tilted toward the sun during half the earth’s orbital period and the other during the other half. The half tilted toward the sun at any given time experiences spring and summer while the other half experiences autumn and winter. It is simple and elegant and accounts for the observations.How does a geocentric model account for the seasons? It would seem that if the earth were stationary, it would have more uniform climatic conditions (e.g., summer in both northern and southern hemispheres at one and the same time).

Answer: Refer to the diagram called “The Celestial Sphere”. Instead of the earth tilting 23 degrees the Sun goes around the World every day, following a path in the sky

7

called the ecliptic (the plane of the sun tilting about 23 degrees). The seasons are simply explained by the Sun traversing the ecliptic over a period of twelve months, such that the declination of the Sun (effectively a measure of its height above the celestial equator) will vary slightly from one day to the next. Contemplation of the Figure 1 will illustrate the mechanism by which the Sun reaches its highest position in the sky on the summer solstice, its lowest position on the winter solstice and that it crosses the equator at the points referred to as the vernal and autumnal equinoxes.

CELESTIAL SPHERE – FIGURE 1

8

9

9) Objection: Didn’t the Church give implicit approval to the Heliocentric theory by allowing it to be taught as early as the 18th century?

Answer: Let’s examine the timeline concerning what the Church taught and believed.

33AD – 1543 Consensus by all fathers and doctors of the Church was the Geocentrist universe1543 Nicolaus Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of Spheres).1534-1549 Reign of Pope Paul III, who was quite aware of Fr. Copernicus’ work. The two were actually friends.1605-1621 Reign of Pope Paul V, who issued a 1616 decree condemning pro-heliocentricity work of Galileo Galilei.1623-1644 Reign of Pope Urban VIII, who issued a 2nd decree [1633] condemning Copernicanism.1655-1657 Reign of Pope Alexander VII, who issued a Bull [1664] reinforcing that Copernicanism was heretical.1740-1758 Reign of Pope Benedict XIV, who removed the Copernican books from the Index in 1740. This was done only because of the removal of nine sentences from Copernicus’ book, sentences that had affirmed the heliocentric system as a certainty. There was no affirmation of the heliocentric theory.

First, the Fathers of the Church, in consensus, were all Geocentrists such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Augustine. (There was only one flat-earther, Lactantius). The Church holds that we are to believe what the Father’s believed in consensus, for it is held that the Father’s clung to those beliefs because they received them from the Apostles. Second, we have the decision of the Church, in an official statement, to reject Copernicanism. That official statement has never been annulled. (See Appdx A)Third, we have the repeated assertion of Scripture, in a number of passages that the sun goes around the earth, and the earth is stationary (see Objections 4-5). It is not just one or two verses. We don’t have to be puzzled and wonder “what did God intend?,” since the abundance of passages giving the same testimony is rather overwhelming. In addition, there are no passages which say the sun stands still (unless by a miracle – Joshua 10:10-13) and that the earth moves.And lastly the actions of the claimants to the papacy from 1957- present (2006 as of this writing) such as apologies to Galileo, hold no weight since these claimants do not represent the Catholic faith.

10) Objection: Didn’t the astronauts who landed on the moon distinguish that the earth rotates and revolves?

Answer : Let’s make a big assumption that the astro”nots” really were on the moon. If you were on the moon watching the earth you wouldn't be able to tell if the moon and the universe were going around the earth, or if the earth was rotating. There is no proof for a preferred frame of reference, at least with respect to being on the moon or being on the earth. In Relativity theory, there is no preferred frame of reference for anything. That's why they call it "Relativity." The only way you can have a preferred frame of reference is if one of the objects in the system is immobile. If the earth is immobile, then it is the

10

preferred frame of reference, indeed, the only frame of reference for the rest of the universe. That is precisely the picture of the universe that Scripture give us.

Also there was a contemporary of Einstein named Ernst Mach (the same name from which we get jet speeds of Mach 1, 2, etc). Mach proved by a simple thought-experiment that there is no way to prove whether the universe goes around the earth or the earth goes around the universe. No one has ever denied or discredited Mach's finding.

11) Objection: Doesn’t the parallax affect, discovered by Friedrich Bessel (1784-1846) proved that earth is not stationary? Parallax refers to the apparent change in an object’s position relative to more distant “fixed” objects when the observer moves.

Answer: Parallax was supposed to be the fatal blow to Geocentrism in 1838. Because of its apparently swift motion against the background stars, Bessel selected Cygni-61. He measured the angular distance of Cygni-61 from two neighboring, but more distant, stars which showed no motion. After eliminating Cygni’s motion, Bessel concluded that it revealed a parallax amounting to a third of a second of an arc, which amounts to a distance of about 60 trillion miles. After Bessel, Henderson detected a parallax of Alpha Centauri in 1839, and F. G. W. Struve’s detection of a parallax for Vega in 1840.But this can be easily explained in the Geocentric model in the diagram below:

The diagram shows the position of the sun and star six months apart. Since in the Geocentric system the star and the sun both go around the earth, then from earth we will see the star in a different position in the sky. The parallax will be the same dimensions as that in the Heliocentric system.

11

The earth lies on the axis of the universe’s daily rotation. In addition to the universe’s daily rotation around the earth, the universe wobbles on an axis inclined 23.5 degrees to the rotation axis. It completes one turn of the wobble in a period of one year. The wobble carries the sun and stars two astronomical units (earth-sun distances) to the opposite side of the earth and results in the following

The sun and the stars move together in the same plane. The sun is always pointed in the same direction to the stars. The result of stars/sun wobble answers to the parallax shift, star light aberration, the annual Doppler shift, the precession of equinoxes, and the perihelion precession that have been observed (see Fig. 1).

12) Objection: Doesn’t the Foucault experiment prove a rotating earth? Using a Foucault pendulum we can see that the Earth rotates around itself. The pendulum swings in the same plane as the Earth rotates beneath it. At either pole, the swinging plane mirrors the Earth’s 24 hour period. Some rotation is observed at all other locations on the Earth’s surface as well, except for the equator.

Answer: No, the Foucault Pendulum does not prove the earth rotates, since Einstein, J. Lense, Hans Thirring and Ernst Mach proved that the same effects seen in the pendulum can come from a rotating star system against a stationary earth. The effects are exactly the same.

Einstein taught that there is a force inside a moving sphere of matter. He wrote to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913:

“If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by the shell experiences an accelerative force. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through it center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around.”

12

This coincides with Geocentric theory, since it is the belief that the daily rotation of the stars around the earth causes gravity, as well as the Coriolis forces and the Foucault pendulum effect that Heliocentrists are so fond of attributing only to a rotating earth. Einstein is confirming the Lense-Thirring effect. In fact, Einstein cites Hans Thirring in his 1914 paper. He writes:

“Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forceswould be in effect for masses at rest in the universe’s coordinate system, while no such forces would bepresent for object at rest with respect to the earth.”

In addition the Foucault Pendulum swung 15 degrees out of its parabola in a recent 1998 experiment during a solar eclipse, and it has always done so in other solar eclipses. How can this happen if the pendulum was affected only by the earth’s “rotation”?

13) Objection: What does it really matter whether the sun is the center or the earth is the center? Couldn’t God have created the universe anyway He wanted?

Answer: Yes; this is why He told us how He created it. The scriptures are clear as were the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church that the earth is the center of the universe.

The reason this issue is so important is because heliocentricism gives the basis for evolution and the eventual denial of God as our creator. If we are just one speck in the vast ocean of an expanding universe (with the potentiality of other life) then where is the divine significance of creation? In Genesis 1 we find that the earth was created first, and then the stars and sun were added later to fix times and seasons for the earth, not vice versa. What planet in our solar system even gets one mention in the Scriptures? Or why is the earth is called the “footstool” of God (Is 66:1)?

But let’s listen to St. Robert Bellarmine on this issue (emphasis mine). Note that Father Foscarini was a Carmelite provincial who supported Galileo publicly by attempting to prove that the new theory was not opposed to Scripture.

St. Robert Bellarmine, the great Catholic Apologist of his time,

13

wrote the following to Father Paolo Foscarini on April 12, 1613:

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise, which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.

Nor may it be answered that this is NOT a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstrations; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first

14

demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the Holy Fathers.

I add that the words "The sun riseth and goeth down, and returnneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north." (Ecclesiastes 1: 5,6) were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.

APPENDICES A:

15

Congregation of the Index actions against Copernicanism (Heliocentrism)

In 1616 the Congregation of the Index -- founded by St. Pius V in 1571 and now headed by Cardinal Bellarmine acting in the name of Paul V -- was forced to take action, based on the findings of consultors to the Holy Office. Without naming Galileo, it banned all writings which treated of Copernicanism as anything but an unproven hypothesis,

"Because it has come to the attention of this Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine which is false and contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicholas Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium and by Diego de Zuniga's On Job, is now being spread and accepted by many - as may be seen from a letter of a Carmelite Father entitled 'Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the Opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the Motion of the Earth and the Stability of the Sun, and the New Pythagorean System of the World,' printed in Naples by Lazzaro Scoriggio in 1615: in which the said Father tries to show that the doctrine of the immobility of the sun in the center of the world, and that of the earth's motion, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture.

"Therefore, so that this opinion may not spread any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, it ( the Sacred Congregation ) decrees that the said Nicholas Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium, and Diego de Zuniga's On Job, be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Foscarini, be prohibited and condemned, and that all other books likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited."

Continuing Condemnation: 1664

Taking her information from The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement and the Ultramontane Defense of Them , compiled in 1870 by the English Catholic priest William W. Roberts, the Catholic creationist writer Paula Haigh has pointed out that a generation after Galileo's death:

"In 1664 the Church went to further lengths to extirpate his error: The Index for that year was prefixed by a Bull. Entitled Speculatores Domus Israel, it was signed by Pope Alexander VII, who declared, 'We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.'

"The importance of this document cannot be minimized, for it included and re-affirmed not only previous formal condemnations, but 'all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement'" Miss Haigh therefore rightly concludes, "The evidence for papal infallibility in the Galileo case rests then upon the Bull of Alexander VII in 1664."

16

She discerns a twofold basis for its authority: "1) The decrees of the Index and the Inquisition which were based on the truth of the Church's tradition, especially as in this case it rested upon the unanimity of the Fathers and the constant position of the Church; and 2) the infallibility of the Pope speaking in his own official capacity as Head of the Church and therefore ex cathedra, even though not defining any new dogma but simply affirming tradition.

"The modern theologians have never addressed the problem posed by this Bull of Alexander VII. If they had, they would need to admit its direct papal authority and search for some subsequent document by a subsequent pope that formally and specifically abrogated, i.e., nullified the 1664 Bull. But no such document has ever been found or produced.

APPENDICES B:

17

SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support egocentricity.

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5). This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth!

Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment. It was carried out to check that the velocity of the earth round the sun was about 30km/sec as it moved through the aether. When it found hardly any movement at all, the result stunned the scientific community! Little of this reached the ears of the public and this result had to be “explained away".

There is a simple model that can be pictured to explain the reason for the experiment. Imagine that you are on a lake in a small boat with a very quiet engine (the earth), and not far away is a huge liner (the sun). You are at the centre of the lake, the shore is a long way off but you can see mountains on it, and you can see the liner circling you. You notice that the shore (the stars) is going past the large ship fairly quickly, and you realize that either (i) you are circling the large ship OR (ii) the large ship is circling you - and you cannot immediately tell which one is circling which. You know the distance between the two ships and timing how long it takes for the shore to make a complete circle (1 year), you can say that either the large ship is going round you at 30mph or you are going round it at that speed.

There is a very simple test that will tell you which one is circling which. What can you do to find out??? The answer is very simple.

You put your hand in the water (the aether)!!!

If you are moving through the water, then it is you going round the large ship, and you can check your speed through the water to see if it is 30 mph. If it is, then the large ship must be stationary. HOWEVER, if you find that you are stationary in the water, then it must be the large ship that is GOING ROUND YOU.

The MM experiment showed that the earth was (almost) stationary! So they had to invent the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, and eventually

18

Einstein swept the whole problem under the carpet by mathematically removing the aether (the water). That this brought huge problems into scientific theories was ignored, and false evidence produced (Eclipse, traveling clocks, perihelion precession of Mercury) to support the theory. There have

APPENDICES B:

been many attacks upon the theory, but so powerful are the forces that support it that they have had little publicity or real damaging effect upon the "scientific" acceptance of the theory even today.

(b) Airey's “failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35).

Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

What was interesting is that Airey was a heliocentrist set to prove his theory but when he couldn’t (it proved the earth was immobile) it was termed Airey’s “failure”. I guess one man’s failure is another man’s success.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where

19

they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity. This gives weight to the term “educated idiots”.

APPENDICES C:

THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE

How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating?

There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. This whole universe sweeps round the earth because otherwise it would collapse in on itself due to its density.

The mechanics of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses in their orbit around the sun. Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc.

Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity!

20

APPENDICES D:

Time elapsed photography of visible stars in the northern skies going around the North Star in perfect circles. More visual evidence that God created an earth centered universe.

21

Wisdom 13:2 ….. But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.

APPENDICES D:

THE "WALLS" OF GALAXIES

The position of 200,000 galaxies have been plotted and they have shown that there are several "walls" of galaxies, all centered on the earth. Fig. 2 shows just a slice of the survey and contains 33,500 galaxies.

Evolutionists would expect to see a very random distribution of galaxies - or all heavenly bodies - but this in not what is found. Strips of galaxies in long chains are obvious and they are ALL roughly centered on the earth. This is far greater than pure coincidence could have obtained.

Notice also that even the thinning out of the galaxies is centered upon the earth. This sparser number of galaxies could have been over a large area not centered upon the earth - but even this is centered upon the earth.

22

Fig. 2

The "walls of galaxies" centered upon the earth.

APPENDICES E:

Some juxtaposition for earth-movers

1) They tell us that the moon has selective gravity for the oceans and therefore causes tides on the earth but leaves satellites in orbit unaffected.

2) They tell us that the Coriolis force affects hurricanes and projectiles but not toilets and clouds.

3) They tell us that it doesn’t matter if a NASA or NAOO engineer sends up rockets and satellites based only on Fixed-earth model.

4) They can’t explain how the Global Stationary Satellite can resist the earth’s perturbations;

5) They can’t tell us what gravity is;

23

6) They can’t tell us why the Foucault pendulum swings 15 degrees out of its parabola during eclipses,

24